Most/Many Indians in the UK disagree with liberal immigration policies. I want to point out a few reasons why they [may] disagree with it:

immigration into the UK from the Indian subcontinent is mostly only a small community of priveleged folk, and the disadvantaged and poor often miss out; technically the government is paying for the education and not seeing a return through taxes. It's a similar to how mostly the fittest and strongest were the only refugees able to make it to Europe during the Migrants Crisis, thereby making the policy of accepting refugees as the arrive on land a bit unfair and stupid.

and talking about the Migrants Crisis, it needs to be said that the majority of immigration into Europe is from Muslim countries, and that Muslims and Indians do not get along even among locally born latter generations.

a lot of locally born latter generation Indians tend to dislike first generation Indians. The culture difference can be too strong, not forgetting that most racial minorities find it offensive to equate immigration to a racism issue (e.g. not bring citizens into immigration debates).

When it comes to HB-1 Visas, I actually think it's better to reduce the number of visas being handed out, and instead focus on creating jobs in India, exporting surplus jobs to India, and economically developing India and thereby helping out millions of people living in poverty.

I also find that the US tends to habour a lot of the types that don't fit in well with mainstream political rhetoric everywhere else. e.g. the majority of South Asians (other than Muslims) outside the US are right-leaning, and I say this as a second generation locally born person.

I guess the geopolitics are different then. I'm mostly supportive of China. And I generally find that this concept was invented in the US - it's Black Americans that first took offense at African immigrants.

Ah, I see where you're coming from.. the old "brain drain" argument. I don't know if I still buy it. World dynamics is complex. It's a bit of a stretch assume that the "top engineers" from India coming to the US would have achieved the same "top things" in their own country.

There are people who worked in the US and went back to India and done well. Look up FlipKart and its founders. Could they have achieved the same without working for Amazon? No one can know for sure. But even keeping those aside, I won't make the claim that it's a net gain for India. I just don't think "millions of people" would have been somehow magically lifted out of poverty if H-1B didn't exist.

I think the problem with holding another election is that it shows that the there's very little representation of people who want Brexit, despite half the country voting for it. A Pro-Brexit person would take this chance to leave and run. Maybe another referendum with multiple questions for clarity?

The welfare system that the UK currently has was built because the country was devestated after WW2 and was receiving money from the US from infrastructure. That doesn't mean it's the best system though.

If I'm right in thinking, it's possible to move countries and keep your citizenship but pay the taxed of your resident country - not your citizenship. A lot of Scandinavian billionaires probably do this.

Addressing the UN's exceptional statement about the government inflicting 'misery' on its citizens/residents, what countries actually do better than he UK? I presume that it's only Western Europe that beats the UK, and out of this most of Southern Europe is poor and debt-ridden, leaving only Northern Europe down till the Swiss border (and I'm not even sure about what system Germany/ Austria has). Isn't it ridiculous to single out the UK for poverty?

It’s Hydro dams that are the real reason. As long as the rivers keep flowing the potential energy generation is massive for states in the region. It’s a clean source of energy that is badly needed at the moment.

Also some of the rivers in the region do feed states in India, but I don’t know which ones off the top of my head.

This is incorrect. Vegetarianism in the Subcontinent is a byproduct of the diversity of plant based food sources available as compared to colder regions of the world. The diet of various non-coastal, non-mountainous people in India was already vegetarian well before Siddhartha Gautama (the 'Buddha' from Buddhism) was born.

Technically I read your initial post incorrectly. I though you said that no vegetarianism was present in India. I was only stating that the monks made it widespread in India, after which it shrunk again.

Currently 1-in-10 young people at primary school are Muslim. Obviously this statistic does not include people who are ethnoreligiously Muslim but not religiously Muslim. This does not take into account Muslim immigration.

Not only does it mean that British Muslims is outnumber British Non-Muslim South Asians by a large margin (as is already the case among younger demographics), it also means that many countries of Europe will have a larger share of Muslims than many states of India.

I think this is the primary reason why the left-wing has been siding so hard with the Muslim community, and the right-wing has been so weak in opposing it. Muslims are almost like an integral part of Europe and the UK isn't being open about this.

Interesting that some of the translations are Americanisms - notable example of where the US has more power over English than the UK in the surrounding region. I wonder if Ireland or places like Scotland/Wales can be more American than Englandian?

I was thinking earlier that it's a shame how most investment into infrastructure happens in less habitable climates while the warm climates get less investment. I wonder if when California builds its high speed rail, it might spur more investment into that region and then it'll become near the top.